Gameplay Designer of Battlefield 3 Explains Reasoning For 24 Players On Consoles

Senior Gameplay Designer on Battlefield 3, Alan Kertz aka Demize99 on Twitter, answered a common question console players have regarding player count.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
callmedom942604d ago

24 players will work on consoles without a doubt, and the graphics and gameplay will still be amazing.

Paradicia2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

It's completely understandable. Most games fail to even have 8 v 8 nowadays. With the added destruction and expanse of the landscapes in the series, its a wonder that DICE manages to keep 12 v 12 on consoles.

Edit: @ExPresident: Mostly Third person shooters and a select few FPS games. It's the generation of Co-op.

ExPresident2604d ago

Which games on consoles are failing to do 8 v 8 nowadays?

Agent-862604d ago

@ExPresident, wasn't Crysis 2 only 6 v 6?

Pixel_Pusher2604d ago

I don't care it's not important to me. COD maxes out at 18.

Yes BF3 will have larger maps but DICE will work it's magic and make it all groove together nicely.

curtis_boy2604d ago

go to and get yourself a decent pc there having a great 4th of july sale

Inside_out2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

I mean after all they have this next gen engine in the current gen, Frostbite 2, but it's not doing anything new from what I can tell. Where's all the new features??? It's all excuses, ALL the time now. Sure, go buy a $1200 pc and you " might " get a great performance from the way to tell yet as the game hasn't released and there is no telling what kind of rig they are running these trailers on.

All I hear is trust me, it'll be amazing...O_o...After all their talk about " lazy devs " they don't seem to be to it's all games are 720p and 30 fps just like them.

arjman2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )


You fail on many levels :/

A next gen engine won't magically work better than a current gen engine. Frostbite 2 won't magically double the fps and up the graphics on consoles, people complain about 24 players and 30fps but they were never complaining when Bad Company 1 & 2 came out. It was the opposite actually. The hardware is the same, limited, hardware that we had years ago...

A $700 PC could max out BF3 because we know what card they were using for the trailers (GTX 580) which were representing the alpha build of the game, aka the unoptimized one. When it arrives, further optimized, I bet you'll be able to run it on high on a GTX 460...

They never claimed to create 1080p 60fps games and so they can't be blamed when it doesn't turn out that way. IMO the PS3 footage from the E3 gameplay looked pretty awesome, better than BC2, an achievement on consoles.

awi59512603d ago


Are you really that stupid? If it really takes 1,200 dollar rig to max BF3, which it doesn't, you really think a 600 dollar console will come even close. A 600 dollar up to date pc will max BF3. That's 600 dollars today in pc parts not 600 dollars in 6 year old console hardware. The fact that console is locked to direct x9 means there are lots graphics effects that the console is locked out of from the start. So your just being silly even saying that.

pumpactionpimp2603d ago

yeah my first comment!


You do understand the name of the game is BATTLEFIELD... just stating that 12 v 12 isn't much of a "battlefield". I would gear my gameplay towards the title of my game, rather than wow people with pretty graphics.

just sayin

lil Titan2603d ago

most people are paying for the multiplayer experience when they pick up a battlefield game, i will still be getting battlefield 3 for PS3 but its more like Badcompany 3 while pc owners get Battle field 3, theres a solution for everything and they should figure it out

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2603d ago
BaN590DeR2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

i believe 32 players will work on PS3 but they don`t want to upset some fanboys

Paradicia2604d ago


Disappoint fanboys? Trust me, if DICE had a way of putting 32 players on PS3 I'm sure they would, the same goes for other consoles. With the level of destruction and scale present in Battlefield, especially with this being the third in the main series, it's not possible on consoles as a whole. It would become too unstable.


@BaN590DeR Quite the crap...Its just common sense and logic..Smaller maps on consoles means smaller players on consoles.

DrRichtofen2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

Yeah thats what KZ2 had and it worked fine. I am still a little bummed they don't have 64 players on PS3 I mean thats only 1/4 of what Mag had and that played good too. I think they just want want to make all console versions of BF3 the same and equal, which I respect and can understand their reasons for. BF3 for consoles is still going to be a great experience none the less.

Paradicia2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

Why do you think Guerrilla downgraded the player count from 32 - 24 in Killzone 3? I've been in my fair share of 32p servers in KZ2, and they were nothing short of a clusterf*ck! No balance, just mindless spawn camping w/rocket and grenade spam.

Shackdaddy8362604d ago

Whyt does everyone mention MAG on these types of articles?

1. MAG had horrible graphics
2. MAG didn't have destructible environments
3. MAG was specifically designed for the PS3
4. You could only see 64 players at most while playing

Quit mentioning MAG people...

DrRichtofen2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

I dont know why they lowered the player count by 8, I wasn't at that meeting. "No balance, just mindless spawn camping w/rocket and grenade spam" name 3 fps's that don't run into that.

1)You can't deny Mag's existance thats why people bring it up.
2)I bet if Mag were toned back to 64 players instead of 256 there would have been a large graphical difference.
3) Zipper games arn't known for amazing graphics but quality gameplay
4) And if you looking for good graphics with a large player count might I suggest Resistance 2, that game had great graphics for its time (2008) and easily managed 60 players. Just imagine what R2 could have been if it were a 2011 game.

kingdoms2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

You believe this because your using inferior games that are not even close to the technical level of BF3. If both the 360 and PS3 had 32 players some how, the PS3 version would have significant amounts of missing textures and objects and other effects the 360 version had. The frame rate would be the worst on PS3. PS3 would be dealing with physics better with the destruction thanks to its CPU and the 360 GPU and RAM- memory architecture would maintain better visuals and multi task everything on screen running at once better giving a overall smoother gameplay with sharper higher resolution environments

mrsatan2604d ago

You have no idea what you are talking about. Stop trolling for 360.

jdfoster002604d ago

could have 256 players on ps3... =/

callmedom942604d ago

No, we can't. It would run terrible, even on PC. and if it was able to run, it would be way too many people on a game like this(do not compare this to MAG please and say it could have that many people). It just wouldn't work correctly, there was an interview stating that it wouldn't be that good either..

"Patrick: -A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we’ve tried it. We play tested with 128. You’ve got to make a game that’s fun to play. And, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it’s between 32 and 40 players. And we’ve done substantial research into this and tested 128 and that it’s not fun. Maybe we haven't done our design work good enough, but we just feel like there's no point in going higher than 64." - http://www.battlefield3game...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2604d ago
ichdich2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

24 players is very good no need more... 64 is so stupid .. believe me. (played it on BF2, on my PC and its such a mess)

zinkabass2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

I don't remember how BF2 was with 64,..Might test it out tonight, if I find the cd,.. but MAG works pretty well with 256 (128 is better though, 256 is really a clusterfuck sometimes ),..

I guess it comes down to map size and mostly map design,.. Because in MAG they kinda spread the people in a way,.. it is kinda strange how they actually designed it, so that it actually works pretty well most of the time,..

DanSolo2604d ago

Well I would have liked it if it was 16 vs 16, but 12 vs 12 works just fine on BF:BC2 and I play that all the time (actually just got a text from my mate saying to get on there and kick some ass in 10 mins coincidentally).

And although the bigger maps would have been cool with a larger player count, I am glad the maps will be smaller than the PC version or else it would just have felt empty.... the maps will be at least as big as the BF:BC2 ones, and those maps are very big compared to games like COD, so although the console versions will not be as big as the PC version... they will still be the best FPS on any console, and will be a big step up from BF:BC2.... so really.... who gives a shit? The only people complaining about the; player count/map size/graphics are people who don't realise all those things will be just fine for the game!

CapsLocke2604d ago

I'm good with 24 players on consoles... because i have a PC *trollface*

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.